A formative study to develop nudges informed by behavioral economics to increase engagement with tobacco treatment among people who smoke receiving care for HIV

Daniel Blumenthal , Nathaniel Stevens , Frank T. Leone , Anna-Marika Bauer , E. Paul Wileyto , Casey Foster , Spencer Schwartz , Julia Villasenor , Brian P. Jenssen , Helen Koenig , Judith O’Donnell , Robert Gross , Robert Schnoll
{"title":"A formative study to develop nudges informed by behavioral economics to increase engagement with tobacco treatment among people who smoke receiving care for HIV","authors":"Daniel Blumenthal ,&nbsp;Nathaniel Stevens ,&nbsp;Frank T. Leone ,&nbsp;Anna-Marika Bauer ,&nbsp;E. Paul Wileyto ,&nbsp;Casey Foster ,&nbsp;Spencer Schwartz ,&nbsp;Julia Villasenor ,&nbsp;Brian P. Jenssen ,&nbsp;Helen Koenig ,&nbsp;Judith O’Donnell ,&nbsp;Robert Gross ,&nbsp;Robert Schnoll","doi":"10.1016/j.dadr.2025.100354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The rate of tobacco use among people with HIV (PWH) is &gt; 2 fold higher vs. the general population and accounts for more life years lost than the virus. Yet, evidence-based tobacco treatments are uncommonly offered by clinicians or used by PWH. Biases informed by behavioral economics concerning tobacco treatments may drive this practice gap.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This formative study tested nudges in the form of messages that target four behavioral economic biases – status quo, availability, omission, and focusing effect – to determine which message would be most strongly associated with PWH willingness to use or clinician referral for tobacco treatment; 19 clinicians and 75 PWH assessed pair-wise comparisons of the four messages with instructions to select the message that, if sent via text or a patient portal, or via the electronic medical record (EMR) at a clinic visit, would increase willingness to use or provide a referral for tobacco treatment.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There were significant differences in reported preference across the messages among PWH <u>(χ</u><sup>2</sup>[3]=24.79, <u>p</u> &lt; 0.001) and clinicians (<u>χ</u><sup>2</sup>[3]=33.85<u>, p</u> &lt; 0.001). The message that addressed focusing effect bias was most preferred for increasing use and referral for tobacco treatment among PWH (29 %) and clinicians (38 %).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>A message that addressed focusing effect bias was associated with greater interest in the use of or referral for tobacco treatment within HIV care. These results can help design a clinical trial to test the effectiveness of these messages within the clinical workflow for their effects on actual use of and referral for tobacco treatment for PWH.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72841,"journal":{"name":"Drug and alcohol dependence reports","volume":"16 ","pages":"Article 100354"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug and alcohol dependence reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277272462500037X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The rate of tobacco use among people with HIV (PWH) is > 2 fold higher vs. the general population and accounts for more life years lost than the virus. Yet, evidence-based tobacco treatments are uncommonly offered by clinicians or used by PWH. Biases informed by behavioral economics concerning tobacco treatments may drive this practice gap.

Methods

This formative study tested nudges in the form of messages that target four behavioral economic biases – status quo, availability, omission, and focusing effect – to determine which message would be most strongly associated with PWH willingness to use or clinician referral for tobacco treatment; 19 clinicians and 75 PWH assessed pair-wise comparisons of the four messages with instructions to select the message that, if sent via text or a patient portal, or via the electronic medical record (EMR) at a clinic visit, would increase willingness to use or provide a referral for tobacco treatment.

Results

There were significant differences in reported preference across the messages among PWH 2[3]=24.79, p < 0.001) and clinicians (χ2[3]=33.85, p < 0.001). The message that addressed focusing effect bias was most preferred for increasing use and referral for tobacco treatment among PWH (29 %) and clinicians (38 %).

Conclusions

A message that addressed focusing effect bias was associated with greater interest in the use of or referral for tobacco treatment within HIV care. These results can help design a clinical trial to test the effectiveness of these messages within the clinical workflow for their effects on actual use of and referral for tobacco treatment for PWH.
一项形成性研究,旨在根据行为经济学制定推动措施,以增加接受艾滋病毒治疗的吸烟者对烟草治疗的参与
背景:艾滋病毒感染者(PWH)的烟草使用率比一般人群高2倍,造成的寿命损失比病毒感染者多。然而,临床医生很少提供或由PWH使用循证烟草治疗。行为经济学对烟草治疗的偏见可能导致这种实践差距。方法:本形成性研究测试了针对四种行为经济偏差(现状、可用性、遗漏和聚焦效应)的信息形式的推动,以确定哪种信息与PWH使用烟草治疗的意愿或临床医生转诊最密切相关;19名临床医生和75名PWH对这四种信息进行了两两比较,并给出了选择信息的指示,如果通过文本或患者门户网站发送,或在诊所访问时通过电子病历(EMR)发送,将增加使用烟草治疗的意愿或提供转诊。结果PWH (χ2[3]=24.79, p < 0.001)和临床医生(χ2[3]=33.85, p < 0.001)在不同信息中报告的偏好有显著差异。在PWH(29%)和临床医生(38%)中,解决聚焦效应偏倚的信息最受欢迎,以增加烟草治疗的使用和转诊。结论:解决聚焦效应偏差的信息与在艾滋病毒护理中使用或转诊烟草治疗的更大兴趣相关。这些结果可以帮助设计一项临床试验,以测试这些信息在临床工作流程中的有效性,以了解它们对PWH烟草治疗的实际使用和转诊的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Drug and alcohol dependence reports
Drug and alcohol dependence reports Psychiatry and Mental Health
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
100 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信